↓ Skip to main content

Distributed Cognition and Process Management Enabling Individualized Translational Research: The NIH Undiagnosed Diseases Program Experience

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Distributed Cognition and Process Management Enabling Individualized Translational Research: The NIH Undiagnosed Diseases Program Experience
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, October 2016
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2016.00039
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amanda E. Links, David Draper, Elizabeth Lee, Jessica Guzman, Zaheer Valivullah, Valerie Maduro, Vlad Lebedev, Maxim Didenko, Garrick Tomlin, Michael Brudno, Marta Girdea, Sergiu Dumitriu, Melissa A. Haendel, Christopher J. Mungall, Damian Smedley, Harry Hochheiser, Andrew M. Arnold, Bert Coessens, Steven Verhoeven, William Bone, David Adams, Cornelius F. Boerkoel, William A. Gahl, Murat Sincan

Abstract

The National Institutes of Health Undiagnosed Diseases Program (NIH UDP) applies translational research systematically to diagnose patients with undiagnosed diseases. The challenge is to implement an information system enabling scalable translational research. The authors hypothesized that similar complex problems are resolvable through process management and the distributed cognition of communities. The team, therefore, built the NIH UDP integrated collaboration system (UDPICS) to form virtual collaborative multidisciplinary research networks or communities. UDPICS supports these communities through integrated process management, ontology-based phenotyping, biospecimen management, cloud-based genomic analysis, and an electronic laboratory notebook. UDPICS provided a mechanism for efficient, transparent, and scalable translational research and thereby addressed many of the complex and diverse research and logistical problems of the NIH UDP. Full definition of the strengths and deficiencies of UDPICS will require formal qualitative and quantitative usability and process improvement measurement.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Unknown 27 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 21%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 18%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Other 5 18%
Unknown 1 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 6 21%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 11%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Other 7 25%
Unknown 2 7%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 November 2016.
All research outputs
#14,599,900
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#2,511
of 7,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,649
of 326,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#10
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,177 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,114 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.